Yesterdaywe published the main resolutions adopted by the Fifth Congress of the
Polish Social-Democratic Party.[1]
The Polish
comrades—25,000-3O,000 strong, now affiliated to our
Party—expressed their emphatic opposition to the Central Committee’s
tactics in relation to the State Duma. Condemning these tactics as a whole, they
did not deem it necessary to dwell on the individual mistakes that inevitably
follow from these wrong tactics, such as the notorious support for a Cadet
Cabinet. But it goes without saying— and those who were present at the
Polish Congress know this perfectly well—that the Polish Social-Democrats
are absolutely opposed to this “support”. The Conference,
representing all the St. Petersburg Social-Democrats also emphatically rejected
support for a Cadet Cabinet[2];
and the Regional Conference
representing the Social-Democrats of the Central Moscow District, too,
pronounced against it.[3]

TheSt. Petersburg Conference represented about 4,000 Party members, and the
Moscow Regional Conference about 14,000. Thus, about 20,000 members of
the. Party, that is, the major half of the membership (at the last congress
31,000-33,000 members were represented) have condemned the Central
Committee’s tactics on the question of supporting a Duma Cabinet. The
majority of the Party membership is opposed to this policy. Our Party Cabinet,
that is to say, the Central Committee of our Party, no longer expresses the
Party’s opinion. Its elementary political duty now is to expedite the convening
of an immediate extraordinary congress. If it fails to do that it will become a
clique, clinging to power in the Party on pretexts for delay and excuses of a
formal nature, in spite of the expressed opinion of the Party
on the substance of the issue. At all events, the Party will now be
able to secure the convocation of a congress.

TheMensheviks continue to advocate the tactics of supporting a Duma,
i.e., a Cadet Cabinet, tactics that have been
condemned by the majority
of the Party membership (although, as the discussion in St. Petersburg has
shown, a number of Mensheviks have now taken up an independent position and have
turned away from opportunism). Let us, once again, examine the current arguments
of the Right-wing Social-Democrats.

Weare told that to secure the appointment of a Duma Cabinet means
“wresting power from the hands of the camarilla”, means
“making the executive power responsible to the representative assembly of
the people”; that it is “the transition from a pseudo-constitutional
system to a real constitution” (Golos Truda, No. 5).

Thatis a downright lie. The Duma, i.e., Cadet, Cabinet will be
appointed (if the Cadets’ demand is conceded) by the camarilla. But can
the appointment of liberal Cabinet Ministers by the camarilla be called
“wresting power”. Appointing Ministers at its own discretion, the
camarilla can dismiss them at any time. The camarilla does not surrender power,
but pretends to share power; the camarilla tests the liberal
flunkeys to see whether they suit it or not. The shrewd members of the
camarilla, like Pobedonostsev and Trepov, for example (judging by certain
newspaper reports), frankly argue in this way: the best thing for us would be to
appoint liberal Ministers. By so doing we should not only pacify the Cadets
(i.e., the majority in the Duma) but also the pro-Cadet Social-Democrats. And
it is much easier to get rid of undesirable Ministers than to get rid of the
Duma, let us say. We shall gain time, shuffle the cards, create utter chaos,
mutual distrust and bickering over ministerial port folios in the Right wing,
i.e., the major half, of the Duma, stir up trouble, and lead the Cadets by the
nose as we did on the question of famine relief. On that question we compelled
them “voluntarily” to play the role of police witnesses. Similarly,
in their ministerial office we shall compel them to play the role of police
flunkeys.

Whoeveris at all familiar with the history of the Russian Cadets, and of the
“Cadets” in other countries,
knoWs
that
the camarilla has always succeeded in leading the liberal- monarchist
bourgeoisie by the nose. The only way to prevent this is to develop the
independent political consciousness of the proletarians and
revolutionary peasants. And it is just the Right Social-Democrats who are
now obscuring and muddling this consciousness. To keep the political
consciousness of the revolutionary classes absolutely clear, and to
preserve their complete fighting independence, we Social-Democrats must
leave it entirely to the Cadets to grovel at the feet of the camarilla for
the sake of ministerial jobs. To involve the proletariat in this business
would be to betray the interests of the proletariat and the interests of the
revolution.

Ifthe camarilla were to appoint Cadets as Ministers it would make “the
executive power responsible to the representative assembly of the people”
(Golos Truda).

Thatis a downright lie. When Cadet professors say it— well, God will
forgive them. But it is unpardonable for a Social-Democrat to repeat it. The
executive power, most worthy yes-men, is not responsible to “the
representative assembly of the people”, but to the legislative
power. Please remember this. Now let us explain the matter further. In
whose hands is the legislative power in Russia today?
1) The supreme authority;
2) the Council of State;
3) the State Duma.

Doyou understand your mistake now? The Cadet Ministers will be responsible to
the Duma, to the Council of State and to the camarilla. To try to make out that
they will be responsible only to the Duma means lying to the people.

Toproceed. What will be the position of Ministers who are responsible to the
most diverse institutions? A false one. The Ministers will be obliged to
observe and uphold all the existing laws until they are repealed by all
the three legislative bodies enumerated above. It is not surprising, therefore,
that eloquent Cadets like Rodichev, are gesticulating in the Duma and
declaiming that they are—the shield of the dynasty. The Cadets know what’s
what. The Right Social-Democrats, however, try to sing in harmony with them, but
they don’t understand what they are doing.

Whyhas the Cabinet become the focal point of the Cadets’ campaign? Why are they
not shouting equally zealously, frequently and loudly: Down with the Council of
State!
Down with the laws that are preventing the representative assembly of
the people from becoming the legislative power!? Why are they conducting a
thousand times smaller campaign for a general amnesty, for complete freedom
and for universal suffrage than they are conducting for ministerial jobs? Have
you thought about this? No, you have not. The Cadets are knocking at the back
door in the first place because they don’t want complete freedom
(recall their Public Meetings Bill); they don’t want the complete
abolition of the Council of State (remember the Upper Chamber in their
programme), to which they will also be responsible, and to the same
extent as to the Duma, and so forth. The Cadets do not want to
demand that the government should first grant a general amnesty,
first abolish the Council of State, first introduce complete
freedom, first grant universal, etc. suffrage, and only then
appoint them as Cabinet Ministers. Why don’t the Cadets want to do this? Because
they know what’s what; but the yes-men of the Cadets do not.

TheCadets say: When we become Ministers then we will fight
for all these liberties! It can’t be done at once, you know. And their yes-men
believe them, and do their best

TheCadets know that the Cabinet Minister will be responsible to the old,
police, Russian laws; responsible to the Duma, to the camarilla and to the
Council of State. And so the Minister will say in the suavest tones: I would
only be too glad; I am with you heart and soul; but, you see, “the
others” don’t agree; and the Council of State is still a bit stubborn, you
know. Have patience, gentlemen. I am a Cadet, and nobody can touch the
conscience of the camarilla, or of the Council of State, better than the Cadets,
I assure you.

Rememberthis, my dear yes-men; to combat the treacherous tactics of the Cadets
what is required is not to echo the Cadets, but to preserve complete
independence, that is to say, to warn the proletariat and the peasants
not to trust the Cadets, not to repeat the Cadet slogans. Your tactics are
hindering the independent struggle of the working class and
revolutionary peasantry. You are selling our revolutionary birthright for a
mess of Cadet reformist pottage.

Thereis no need for us to explain in such detail the third lie, viz.,
that the appointment of Cadet Ministers by the
camarilla marks a “decisive change”, the transition to a
“real constitution”. Our readers themselves will understand
that the fact that Trepov appoints Rodichev as a Cabinet Minister does not
even change the written constitution. To speak of a change of the
real constitution as the result of such an appointment is to allow
your tongue to run away with you.

Inour next issue we shall examine another current argument, namely:
“After all, a Cadet Cabinet will be better. We have nothing else to choose
from. We must support what is better.” We shall see whether this is a sound,
Social-Democratic argument.

Notes

[1]The Fifth Congress of the Social-Democratic Party of
Poland and Lithuania was held June 5-12 (18-25), 1906 in Zakopane
(Galicia), attended by 52 delegates with the right to speak and vote and 8
consultative delegates. Among the delegates was V. V. Vorovsky representing the
editorial board of the newspaper Vperyod. The report of the Executive
Committee of the Party was delivered by F. E. Dzerzhinsky (at the Congress he
used the name Frankovsky). The main resolutions of the Congress were printed in
Ekho, No. 4 of June 25 (July 8), 1906.

[2]The Conference of the St. Petersburg Organisation of the Russian
Social-Democratic Labour Party was held in Terioki (Finland) on June 11-12
(24-25), 1906. It was convened by the St. Peters burg Committee for formulating
the tactics of the St. Petersburg proletariat towards the State Duma. The
elections at the Conference were preceded by a discussion of two tactical
platforms: the Menshevik resolution of the Central Committee supporting the
slogan of a Duma Cabinet and the Bolshevik resolution of the St. Petersburg
Committee (see present edition, Vol. 10, pp. 481-482).

TheConference was attended by about 80 delegates, who represented some 4,000
members of the Party. Lenin delivered a re port on behalf of the St. Petersburg
Committee. He was opposed by Dan, who defended the standpoint of the Central
Committee. A resolution approving the line of the St. Petersburg Committee was
adopted by a majority of votes.

Theresolution adopted on Lenin’s report on Party unity pointed out that the
Central Committee expressed only the opinion of a minority of the Party and put
forward the demand that a new Party congress should be convened to decide the
situation created in the Party. The Conference decided to establish a permanent
liaison between the St. Petersburg Party organisation and the Social-Democratic
Group in the Duma.

[3]The Moscow Regional Conference of the R.S.D.L.P.
(Conference of the Northern Committees) took place in the first half of June
1906. It was attended by representatives of the committees of Moscow, Moscow
District, Vologda, Yaroslavl, Kineshma, Kostroma, Vladimir District,
Ivanovo-Voznesensk, Borisoglebsk, Nizhni Novgorod, Oral, Kozlov, and the
Social-Democratic group of the
town of Shuya. The Conference represented 14,000 organised workers.

TheConference condemned the tactics of the Menshevik Central Committee, which
had expressed support for the demand for a Duma Cabinet, and adopted the
following resolution: “The Northern Union declares that it is not in
agreement with the platform of the Central Committee, since it does not
consider this platform to be in accord with the directives of the Party
Congress, and it proposes that support be given to the extreme
Left in the Duma” (Ekho, No. 3, June 24, 1906). The Conference
proposed that the extreme Left in the Duma should appeal to the people through a
manifesto, in which it would “explain all the weakness of the Duma, and
its total inability to achieve anything, and call upon the people to prepare for
independent action” (ibid.).